Descartes’s first meditation titled On what can be called into doubt is an elaborate attempt to evaluate the different elements that constitute doubt and the uncertainties that his person has had to deal with from years back. Through his meditations, Descartes was looking to ascertain the basis of scientific knowledge and the ability to resolve the differences that continue to split science and religion. However, to fully outline his perception, he has to come to terms with the lingering doubt within himself, which plays an important role in one’s belief or convictions. Foremost to comprehending the methodology and purpose that universal doubt plays, it is important to reflect on the arguments brought forth by Descartes to create awareness of the necessary knowledge concerning doubt.

After coming to the realization about the falsehood and susceptibility of his past convictions, Descartes is looking to redefine his convictions about science through reestablishing of his opinions from scratch. This is important to avoid any tainting by predisposed propositions about the falsehood of his previous beliefs or incomplete uncertainty. He identifies the role that our senses play in previously defining the truth, which sometimes is later proved otherwise that should be emphasized as one of the reasons to avoid trusting dishonest sources. Per se, Descartes wants to show that foundation of beliefs in science is based on one’s mind rather than their senses. This statement summarizes the objectivity regarding universal doubt to show the existence of doubt in knowledge gained through sense, rather than proving nonexistence.

Thus, the existence of any external objects can only be based on knowledge sourced through the mind (Descartes, 2010). Descartes’s employs three different strategies to guide the reader in understanding the different elements that constitute doubt. The three strategies are based on the idea that external objects cannot be observed directly, but rather created images in our minds that the human sense cannot provide physical proof. For instance, the dream argument where the author elaborates on the sensations he has while dreaming that are eerily similar to his perceptions. In such a scenario, questions arise about the definite point that differentiates the dream experiences and the actual experiences when awake. He notes the nature of dreams to borrow actual features from the real world, as would a painter. Possible inferences from this argument is the possibility that Descartes 3 PHILOSOPHY would be dreaming while he considers himself awake and that all the predisposed perceptions are wrong. Due to the inconclusiveness of this argument on the illusory nature of dreams, he introduces the second argument about the deceiving God.